THIS OPINION IS
SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.

Opinion of the Court

CRAWFORD, Judge:

Pursuant to his pleas, appellant was convicted
of operating a motor vehicle without a license, making a false official
statement, damaging personal property, larceny (2 specifications), and
making a false claim (2 specifications), in violation of Articles 92, 107,
109, 121, and 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§
892, 907, 909, 921, and 932, respectively. The judge sentenced appellant
to a bad-conduct discharge, 2 years' confinement, total forfeitures, and
reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. Acting pursuant to a pretrial agreement,
the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended confinement
in excess of 8 months. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings
and sentence.

We granted review of the following issue raised
by appellate defense counsel:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE ADMITTED,
OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, DD FORM 398-2, NATIONAL
AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE (PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 3),
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED AS PRIOR CONVICTIONS
OF APPELLANT, WHICH WERE NOT CONVICTIONS UNDER THE CONTROLLING STATE LAW.

We also specified the following issue:

WHETHER THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE ERRED TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN HE CONCEDED
THAT APPELLANT HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY REDUCED PRIOR
TO THE ACTION OF THE CONVENING AUTHORITY BUT, IN
EFFECT, STATED THAT NO CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS
REQUIRED.

With respect to the granted issue, we hold
that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting Prosecution
Exhibit (PE) 3.*/ With respect to the
specified issue, the Government concedes administrative error. Thus, corrective
action must be taken.

FACTS

At trial, the prosecutor sought to introduce
appellant’s Department of Defense (DD) Form 398-2, National Agency Questionnaire,
marked PE 3, as part of appellant’s personnel record. The judge overruled
trial defense counsel’s objection, which was based on RCM 1001(b)(2), Manual
for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.), and paragraph 5-26(a), Department
of the Army Regulation (AR) 27-10 (8 August 1994).

a. Have you ever been arrested,
charged, cited, held, or detained by Federal, State, or other law enforcement
or juvenile authorities regardless of whether the charge was dropped or
dismissed or you were found not guilty?

b. List details of "Yes"
answers

(1) Date
(YYMMDD)

(2) Nature of Offense
or Violation

(3) Name and Location
of Law Enforcement
Agency
(City and State)

(4) Name and Location
of Court/Magistrate
(City and State)

(5) Penalty Imposed or
Other Disposition
in Each Case

9003

Speeding

GA State Patrol
Douglas City, GA

Mail in Fine

Pd Fine $65.00

9009

Improper Lane Change

Villarick, [sic] GA

Villarick, [sic]
Police Dept

Pd Fine $35.00

900913

No Helmet

Lawrenceville, P.D.
Lawrenceville, GA

------

$70.00 Fine Paid

900913

.... Wrong class lic

Lawrenceville, P.D.
Lawrenceville, GA

------

Nolo $200 Fine Paid

900913

Driv w/susp lic

Lawrenceville, P.D.
Lawrenceville, GA

------

Nolo $200 Fine Paid

900905

Bench Warrant Arrest

------

------

------

PE 3 lists the judgments and sentences,
including fines, entered against appellant. Two of these were pleas of
nolocontendere. Appellant did not claim the information
was incorrect or inaccurate. In fact, he had completed the form personally
and signed it prior to its being entered into his personnel file.

DISCUSSION

RCM 1001(b)(1)-(3) allows the prosecution to
introduce into evidence service data from the charge sheet, personal data
properly kept pursuant to service regulations, and prior convictions of
an accused. RCM 1001(b)(2) states:

Personal data and character of prior service
of the accused. Under regulations of
the
Secretary concerned, trial counsel may obtain
and introduce from the personnel records of the accused ... copies of reports
reflecting the past military efficiency, conduct, performance, and history
of the accused and evidence of any disciplinary actions including punishments
under
Article 15.

"Personnel records of the accused"
includes any
records made or maintained in accordance with
departmental regulations that reflect the past
military efficiency, conduct, performance, and
history of the accused. If the accused objects
to a particular document as inaccurate or incom-
plete in a specified respect, or as containing
matter that is not admissible under the Military
Rules of Evidence, the matter shall be determined by the military judge.
Objections not
asserted are waived.

Paragraph 5-26(a), AR 27-10, provides in relevant
part:

For purposes of R.C.M. 1001(b)(2) and (d),
trial counsel may, in the trial counsel’s
discretion, present to the military judge
(for use by the court-martial members or
military judge sitting alone) copies of
any personnel records that reflect the
past conduct and performance of the
accused, made or maintained according to
departmental regulations. Examples of
personnel records that may be presented
include -
(1) DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification
Record-Part I), DA Form 2A (Personnel
Qualification Record - Part I - Enlisted
Peacetime), and DA Form 2-1 (Personnel
Qualification Record - Part II).

The fact that PE 3 may not meet the criteria
for admission under RCM 1001(b)(3) as a prior conviction, cf. United
States v. White, 47 MJ 139 (1997), does not prevent its admission under
RCM 1001(b)(2) if relevant and reliable.

[T]here is no rule of evidence which provides
that testimony admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another
purpose is thereby rendered inadmissible; quite the contrary is the case.
It would be a strange rule of law which held that relevant, competent evidence
which tended to show bias on the part of a witness was nonetheless inadmissible
because it also tended to show that the witness was a liar.

United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45,
56 (1984).

RCM 1001(b)(2) does not provide blanket authority
to introduce all information that happens to be maintained in the personnel
records of an accused. Personnel records may contain entries of questionable
accuracy, relevance, or completeness. Appellant, however, did not object
on these grounds to the admission of his DD Form 398-2, which he had prepared.

Paragraph 5-26(a), AR 27-10, sets forth examples
of personnel records of past conduct that may be admissible, including
DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part I) and DA Form 2-1 (Personnel
Qualification Record - Part II), which were PE 2 in this case. The Personnel
Service Battalion noncommissioned officer-in-charge certified both PE 2
and 3 as personnel records of appellant. Both exhibits reflect appellant’s
"past conduct and performance" and were "maintained according
to" Army regulations. Since this was a judge alone trial, the judge
could determine the relevance and reliability of PE 3 for sentencing.

For the reasons set forth above, we hold that
the judge did not abuse his discretion.

The decision of the United States Army Court
of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. The record of trial is returned to the
Judge Advocate General of the Army for corrective action consistent with
this opinion.

Chief Judge COX and Judges GIERKE and EFFRON
concur.

FOOTNOTE:

*/
SeeUnited States v. Sullivan, 42 MJ 360, 363 (1995).

SULLIVAN, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting
in part):

Concerning Issue I, I conclude that, if error
occurred here, it was harmless. Art. 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859(a).
This was a trial by judge alone, who was not likely to be unduly influenced
by this evidence. Appellant was found guilty of numerous serious offenses
permitting 35 years’ confinement. The evidence of prior state court traffic
offenses was deminimis in light of these offenses. The resulting
2 year sentence of the trial judge confirms this fact.

On Issue II, although not an ex post facto
issue, the proper remedy should be a remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
SeeUnited States v. Roseboro, No. 98-0439/AR, ___ MJ ___
(Daily Journal July 27, 1998); United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370,
376 (1997)(Sullivan, J., concurring in part and in the result).